Are QS-9000 to TS 16949 migration benefits noticeable?

E

el_quijote

#1
Are QS9000->TS16949 migration benefits noticeables?

Hi. Our company is moving toward TS16949. We´ve been QS9000 since 1997.
I supose, many people in this forum have already migrated to TS16949. Have the perfomance indexes of their companies shown improvements after migration. What about customer satisfaction ? Has this index shown an improvement too?

Thank you for your responses...

El_Quijote
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Staff member
Admin
#2
I'll be surprised if anyone can come up with data to show an increase in customer satisfaction that they can correlate to their transition and I believe the same is true of the ISO 9001 update.
 
E

el_quijote

#3
Hi Marc!.
I think the question is not trivial.
If someone buys a new version of anything, he/she is expecting to win something, at least to pay the effort of changing from the old version to the new one. So, if nobody can trace any improvements in his/her performance indexes to qs9000 -> ts16949 migration why it is necessary?

What do you think about it?
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Staff member
Admin
#4
It's not a matter of whether it's trivial. I just don't think the differences are that great. I don't typically expect either revised document to necessarily be measureably different with respect to customer satisfaction.
 
D

D.Scott

#5
I agree with Marc on this. I don't think changing to the new standard makes a measurable difference. I certainly feel that implementation of any QMS in a company where none existed will improve both performance and satisfaction.

So, if nobody can trace any improvements in his/her performance indexes to qs9000 -> ts16949 migration why it is necessary?

The only reason we are changing to anything is because the powers that be have dictated that we have no choice. If you want to do business with the automotive industry, you must play ball. I don't believe it has anything to do with performance or satisfaction. :soap:

Dave
 
L

Lmccrary

#6
:bigwave: I agree with you Dave. Our company did improve when we became registered to QS way back in the lat 90's. It helped us to get our ducks in a row so to speak. We have been registered to TS since last August but I believe we would be just fine with just QS. IMHO I don't think the differences are great enough to warrant the beatings from the TS registrars.

Back after a long absense,
Lmm :cool:
 
#7
Lmccrary said:
:bigwave: I agree with you Dave. Our company did improve when we became registered to QS way back in the lat 90's. It helped us to get our ducks in a row so to speak. We have been registered to TS since last August but I believe we would be just fine with just QS. IMHO I don't think the differences are great enough to warrant the beatings from the TS registrars.

Back after a long absense,
Lmm :cool:
Welcome back! :bigwave:

If a company really took to heart the change from 94 to 2K, then perhaps there might be some data. TS does tend to stress metrics to a greater degree than QS. But as has been mentioned, companies are not transitioning because they think it is a good thing, or they will improve their bottom line. They are transitioning because their customers say they gotta.

If you want to sell transition, and are looking for data to back you up, it will be hard to find. Some companies that "see the light", might have data in a year or so, but not yet. Sorry, el_quijote. :(
 
#8
db said:
Welcome back! :bigwave:

If a company really took to heart the change from 94 to 2K, then perhaps there might be some data. TS does tend to stress metrics to a greater degree than QS. But as has been mentioned, companies are not transitioning because they think it is a good thing, or they will improve their bottom line. They are transitioning because their customers say they gotta.

If you want to sell transition, and are looking for data to back you up, it will be hard to find. Some companies that "see the light", might have data in a year or so, but not yet. Sorry, el_quijote. :(
Good points, however, Let the buyer beware. If the only reason a company elects to transition is because there customer says they "gotta" then they are in for a rude awakening.
"stressing metrics to a greater degee than QS" is an understatement; if you don't have them you won't become certified, if you don't keep them up your certificate can be placed on suspension. The same goes for all elements of the specification. The entire audit process is based on the PDCA cycle, and each and every process must show evidence of PDCA and in all cases a repeat minor is a major and a major requires a re-visit.
Like it or not we will be forced to show evidence of improvement.
 
D

D.Scott

#9
Sam, I agree with what you say but I still question who does this benefit? As far as I can see the main beneficiary is the registrar who comes back for the re-visits. The rude awakening seems to come from an auditing perspective and not a customer satisfaction side. I have yet to see anything in this certification circus that takes into acount the satisfaction of the "real" customer. To state that a repeat minor results in a major illustrates the stupidity of of rules imposed by the registrars. I could be wrong but I don't remember reading anything about repeat minors in the standard or the need for re-visits because of them. In a company with 11 plants and over 500 employees I would expect that on any given day an auditor could, with enough digging, find one of our thousands of job cards with a blank that someone hasn't filled in yet. Nonconformance? Sure it is. Minor, sure - come back tomorrow and find another. How does that help anyone but the registrar? Does the customer suffer for the lack of an initial? Did we benefit from the auditor bringing it to our attention?

When the industry wakes up and sees that the problems with the system as it stands is not the standard and not the relationship between the customer and supplier but the development of an industry to police it, maybe the nonsense can stop. There should be no need to come back every six months to confirm the system is still working. Once a company is certified, the only thing that should change that is the customer. If I do a bad job for my customer he should have the right to ask for re-certification. I should also have the choice to not re-certify. Of course I wouldn't be supplying that customer anymore but as long as my other customers were happy, my certification as it stands would be good enough. Until that day, there will always be certifications passed out to inferior systems just to put them on the client list - "we can fix the problems later", there will be interpretations that make no sense, the integrity of the program will be challenged and prices will go up.

There, another day on the soapbox for the old guy. :soap:

Dave
 
#10
Dave, "Another old guy on the soap box"? Me too. I have asked all of the same questions.
During our registrar selection process we reviewed 5 registrars and all 5 had a clause for return visits for major findings. During discusssions the "weasel
words" were "it depends on the depth of the major". ???
During our last SA we had two majors,one was a repeat. The kicker is,that we are on a twice a year audit cycle which means we could conceivably see our auditor 4 times a year. I may just quit internal audits and let our registrar handle it, but then I think of all the fun I would be missing.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
W QS 9000 to TS 16949 Transition Questions IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
T TS 16949 Continual Improvement Requirements vs. QS-9000 Requirements IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 16
J TS 16949 requirements for an ISO 9000 customer IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
F QS-9000 to TS 16949 - How much of a work load is the transition? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
V Difference between QS-9000 manuals and TS 16949 manuals IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
M TS vis-a-vis QS - Seeking TS-16949 to QS-9000 cross reference matrix IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
M PPAP differences between QS-9000 and TS 16949 APQP and PPAP 4
I Audit Days - Our TS 16949 upgrade audit from QS-9000 will be 13 days - Why? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
B Upgrading our QS-9000 system to TS 16949 - Where do I start? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
A QS 9000 or TS 16949 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
T VDA 6.3 vs. QS-9000 vs. TS 16949 Content Comparison VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 57
J Resources needed to transition from QS-9000 to TS 16949 (and more) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
A TS 16949 Section 8.2.4.1 - Layout inspection vs. QS-9000 Section 4.10.4.1 Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 2
C Is the QS-9000 requirement to maintain PPAP capability gone from TS 16949? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
T Are registrars taking a harder line on upgrading QS-9000 certs to TS 16949? Registrars and Notified Bodies 10
G ISO 9000 and TS 16949 - CMMS (Computerized maintenance management software) Required? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
L Upgrading to TS 16949 from QS-9000 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
D Transitioning from QS-9000 to TS 16949 - How long will it take? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
B Changing Procedures: From QS-9000 to TS 16949 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
R 'Upgrading' to TS 16949:2002 from QS-9000 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
T TS 16949 vs. QS-9000 Comparison - Gap analysis attached IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 0
S ISO 9000:2000 to TS 16949:2000 Gap Assessment Tool IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
T TS 16949 vs. QS-9000 Audit Differences IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 24
C Total Quality Management (TQM) - We upgraded from QS-9000 to 16949, 14001, and 17025 ISO 17025 related Discussions 9
S Quality Manual - Summary of Differences Between QS-9000 and TS 16949 Requirements Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 42
S TS 16949 vs QS-9000 Lead Auditor Training IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
F TS 16949 - QS 9000 comparison cross reference matrix IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
S Should we register to QS-9000 or TS 16949? Registrars and Notified Bodies 7
B QS-9000 vs. ISO 9001:2000 vs. TS 16949 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
K TS 16949 Clause 7.4.1.2 - Supplier Development and ISO 9000 Registration Requirement Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 22
M TS 16949 vs. QS-9000 Cross Reference Matrix IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 31
F Is TS 16949 Replacing QS-9000? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
B QS-9000 / TE Requirments and TS 16949 QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard 3
Howard Atkins QS-9000, TS 16949, Ford's Q1 - How They Interrelate Customer and Company Specific Requirements 17
J Transition from QS 9000 to TS 16949 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 13
C From QS-9000 to ISO/TS 16949 and ISO 9001:2000 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
C Gap Analysis comparing QS-9000 and TS 16949 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 33
R TS 16949 Revision to ISO 9000:2000 Alignment IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
A Differences / deltas between ISO/TS 16949 and QS-9000 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
J ISO/TS 16949 vs. QS 9000 - Comparison of the two standards IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 15
K Should we move from QS-9000 to ISO / TS 16949 Registration? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
K How does ISO/TS 16949 differ from QS-9000? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
D Is TS 16949 thinner (less paper) than QS-9000? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
K Does TQM fit in with ISO 9001:2000 and QS-9000 (now TS 16949)? Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 9
B Will TS 16949 be aligned to ISO 9000:2000 in the future? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 62
Marc TS 16949 will replace QS-9000? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
D Complying with TS 16949 and QS-9000 Supplier (Subcontractor) Development Requirements Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 43
C TL-9000 Certifying Body Issue - Auditor failed to find an issue for 10 years TL 9000 Telecommunications Standard and QuEST 16
Q Choosing between ISO 9001 (2015) & TL 9000 certifications ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
qualprod In ISO 9000, Standard vocabulary - Competitors , interested parties? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 13

Similar threads

Top Bottom